Bush's opening statement will be about North Korea's reported nuclear test this week and an update on the situation in Iraq, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

The news conference will offer the first opportunity for reporters to ask Bush about North Korea and Republican prospects in November 7 congressional elections after a scandal involving a gay Republican congressman's sexual messages to teenaged aides.

Bush is seeking a tough response from the U.N. Security Council in response to North Korea's claim this week to have detonated a nuclear weapon.

You're in charge, now congratulations. You can't change history, so let's chalk it all up to Dubya's fault that we're in the mess we're in.

And you can't impeach him 'til after the new Congress is sworn in come January 2007.

But in the meantime, we've had a North Korean test (that may have fizzled, may not have worked, whathaveyou).

So, what would you do??

And please provide a few details. If the answer is bilateral talks, what does that mean? Is simply talking the answer you would provide? If the NKs are demanding billions of dollars in "reparations" and the lifting of economic sanctions and access to Western technology, would you end the discussions, or would you offer it to them?

Or would you threaten them, and if so, how would you couch it?

Or would you refer it all back to the "Six-Party talks," i.e., Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, and ourselves, in addition to NK?

C'mon, you know the liberal response. Appoint a 'blue ribbon' commission to immediately convene hearings to investigate why the North Koreans hate us. Then give North Korea whatever they want. Or was the question rhetorical?

Has anyone mentioned that the bomb that they may (or may not) have detonated was almost certainly a plutonium weapon not an enriched uranium one. The 1994 crisis was about plutonium production, as it was resolved in the agreed framework, the plutonium remained under IAEA supervision until 2002. That's when we found out they had a clandestine uranium enrichment program. So we broke off the agreed framework and so did they. They no longer were bound to keep the plutonium under lock and key, and we stopped giving them goodies. From that point on we have done nothing to stop either uranium enrichment or plutonium production. For a man of action, tough decisions and a will to stop the worlds worst dictators getting hold of the worst weapons, I'd say that Bush has failed here.

Word is Bush is going to change his evil (axis fighting) ways. Of course, we all know his shift from being the big, bad cowboy to his his new - let's give peace a chance" diplomacy mode is only a political ploy to try to squeeze more votes.

After Sept. 11 . . . the Bush team embarked on a different path, outlining a muscular, idealistic and unilateralist vision of American power and how to use it. He aimed to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help. The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut.

But in the span of four years, the Administration has been forced to rethink the doctrine with which it hoped to remake the world as the strategy's ineffectiveness is exposed by the very policies it prescribed. The swaggering Commander in Chief (essential element of cowboyism) who embodied the doctrine's aspirations has modulated himself too. At a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in May, Bush swore off the Wild West rhetoric of getting enemies "dead or alive," conceding that "in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted." Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was equally revealing. Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jon Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action -- or at least a tongue lashing. Instead, the Administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation. As much as anything, it's confirmation of what Princeton political scientist Gary J. Bass calls "doctrinal flameout." Put another way: cowboy diplomacy, RIP.

It's good to see Bush is trying something new - kinda confirms that the old ways have failed this country tremendously over the last 6 years.

Of course - you guys don't believe in diplomacy - and the sad fact is that Bush will fail here as well. He's been proven to be a blowhard - shouted down and stared down by superpowers (coff coff) the likes of Iran and North Korea. Even Cindy Sheehan kicked his sorry *ss around the plains of Texas so badly George hid in his bunkhouse until she'd gone.

No need to post faux-lefty answers guys. I'm sure Lee, Hugh, & Muirego will be here posting as soon as they get back from the Daily Kos with what Comrade Markos tells them they should think about this.

The 1994 agreement was a total success, for North Korea. It allowed the little fat monkey to get Madam NotAllTooBright drunk, bong her, collect billions of dollars of your money, get two free nuclear power plants (used to further develop a nuclear bomb), and laugh at Slick Willie for only getting a BJ. Something no one else (other than a drunken dwarf) would do. The U.S. got exactly nothing positive out of the agreement. Well maybe a few good jokes for the late night shows. Now Leno is a biased right winger. ROFL

Vagabond: NoKo developed nucelar arms capability six years after Bush took office. Diplomacy worked up until Bush took office, at which time he abandoned diplomacy in exchange for his "Look at me - I'm a cowboy" doctrine of shoot first and ask questions later. Now he's hung up his cowboy hat in exchange for diplomacy - something he should have done 5 years ago.

Your boy failed, Vagabond, and now he's changed his tune. Ask him why he's choosing diplomacy now, Vagabond - he'll tell you it's a really good idea -- too bad he waited this long to figure it out -- but he had a rude wake up call from the real superpowers who refused to back him in his "get tough with NoKo" attempts earlier this year.

I'm glad to see Bush has come around to my way of thinking, aren't you Vagabond. Maybe we can maintain the peace.

Sorry about your Republican pals at Halliburton and Co. - I'm sure they were rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a nuclear holocaust.

I agree with Lee, Hugh, Brian and Barney. The blame for this North Korean fiasco is entirely in the laps of the Bush Administration. I have little doubt that Kim is being prevented from successfully fulfilling the primary campaign promise on which he was elected, ie. building a bustling economy for North Korea and expanding the wealth of the NK middle class. Why? Because of having to put all of the economic resources into a nuclear program to deter a US invasion. In fact, the policies of this administration are having the same effect on economic development in Syria, Iran, Palestine. Geesh, I could go on. I bet you guys really stroke it every time Bush uses the term United Nations too.

and Lee, remember the 1994 Agreed Framework which came out of bilateral talks with NoKo? Tons of US tax dollars went over there and it failed because NoKo viloated the agreement from day one (per IAEA) which gave NoKo the capability to develop somewhat of a nuke.

So unilater talks didn't work . Bilateral talks didn't work. Why should Bush waste his time with those? There are other powerful countries who are closer to NoKo and more influential.

What would be your recommended course of action to the President, as of 11 October 2006?

When sales at my old company were tanking, it was the sales VP's responsibility. When the engineering team was consistently late, it was the team lead's responsibility.

The reason we hire leaders (like a President) is because they're supposed to know what they're doing. The rank and file aren't supposed to tell leaders how to do their jobs. But it doesn't take an expert to recognize when they don't.

Lurking Observer, it is not my responsibility to have all the answers. It is the responsibility of the voters to elect competent leads. Bush has demonstrated a complete and total lack of competency such as:
-Shiavo
-Meyers
-The Border
-Iraq
-Katrina
-Deficit/Debt
-Energy Policy
-North Korea
-Iran
-Israel / Palestine
-9/11
-Defending the Constitution
-Leaking Classified Data
-Abramoff
-Dubai Ports
-SS Reform

Scrapie, "get two free nuclear power plants (used to further develop a nuclear bomb)"

Tough guy Rummy thought it was a good idea:

"Mr. Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m (£125m) contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defense secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration."

So far we've seen pretty much 2 responses from the secular socialists on this thread:

1. Blame Bush but totally ingore Clinton's failure.

and

2. Claim that it is not their responsibility to come up with a solution.

#1 is very hypocritical but typical for lefies.
#2 is a legitimate point for the SS trolls on this site,

HOWEVER, these are the exact same responses we get when the LEADERS of the secular socialist party (Kerry, Pelosi, Reed, Dean, H. Clinton, et. al.) are asked the same question and that is unacceptable and it is the reason why they have lost power.

Americans want leaders who do things- even if they make mistakes- not leaders who point fingers, project blame, and make excuses.

Republican Rep. Christopher Shays defended the House speaker's handling of a congressional page scandal, saying no one died like at Chappaquiddick in 1969 when Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy was involved.

"I know the speaker didn't go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day," the embattled Connecticut congressman told The Hartford Courant in remarks published Wednesday.

"Dennis Hastert didn't kill anybody," he added.

I think this is called 'you're not helping'. You can find the story from the AP at Yahoo or whatever, that's where I saw it.

No, it's not as though I'm sitting in the White House, polling for answers on blogs. This is a serious question, such as is put forward to think-tanks, Beltway bandits, and research centers at universities.

What is a serious policy response to the North Korean nuclear test.

Is that really so friggin' hard to understand? Is everything a matter of politics to you people (and that applies to both sides, here)?

Imagine you're William Cohen under Bill Clinton. Or Henry Stimson under FDR. Do you really say, "Listen, I'm a Republican, you're a Democrat, so I'm not serving as SecDef, b/c it's all your problem?" Or do you say, "Here's what I'm thinking should be done, as your SecDef"?

But thanks for letting me know that, to you people, it's more important to stick your tongue out and say "Not my problem, dood, it's yours" than thinking for a few minutes about whether there's actually alternative solution sets.

Considering that you're spouting the talking points of Michael Savage, who even respectable conservatives don't pay attention to anymore, I wasn't even going to address you. But what the heck.

1. Blame Bush but totally ingore Clinton's failure.
#1 is very hypocritical but typical for lefies.

I don't ignore Clinton's failures. But Clinton's been out of office for 6 years. How long can you hide behind him?

I would be happily impressed by you demonstrating how to not be hypocritical by admitting Bush's failure in this matter.

2. Claim that it is not their responsibility to come up with a solution.
#2 is a legitimate point for the SS trolls on this site
HOWEVER, these are the exact same responses we get when the LEADERS of the secular socialist party

Please share with us the foreign policy solutions that Bush the candidate offered while he was running. Please identify those that he followed through with once in the White House. Please highlight the ones that have been successful.

You seem to care only about what politicians say they'll do, and not what they actually do. I would be skeptical of anyone running for office who said that they knew the solution. However, Bush has had 6 years to figure out and implement a solution, and rectify whatever flaws he thought were in Clinton's policies. He did, quite literally, nothing.

I don't listen to Micheal Savage, as what little I've heard of him seems extreme, but perhaps he, like me, recognizes the evil of secular socialism which has taken over what used to be the Democratic Party.

As far as what Bush has done, and I by no means claim to be an expert on this subject, I am aware of at least two things and I approve of both.

The first is that he has been working to build a multinational coalition- made up mostly of nations in that region- to come up with a comprehensive solution to the problem.

Second, he has authorized the development of a missile defense system to protect this country from missile attacks from nations such as NK.

The Bush administration is probably doing a lot more than of what I am aware, but after all they are the "most secretive administration in the entire history of America" so who really has any clue what they're doing?

Brian: "I would be happily impressed by you demonstrating how to not be hypocritical by admitting Bush's failure in this matter."

Perhaps you could say something like:

The ineffeciveness of the Clinton Adminstration in allowing NK to develop nuclear weapons in the first place, among the multiple other diplomatic failures of that administration with regard to NK made the situation enourmously more difficult for Bush, still I believe Bush has failed because [you'll have to supply this part as I have no clue what I'd say here].

From todays press conference:
"Don, I did bring up the words of the leader of the House when she said, "I love tax cuts." And I then reminded everybody that if she loved them so much,.." President Bush 10/11/06

The first is that he has been working to...
Second, he has authorized...

"Working to", "authorized", ... what has he done? And again, I'm referring to those things that he claimed to have the solution for as a candidate, as several on here now facetiously expect Dems to have.

The ineffeciveness of the Clinton Adminstration in allowing NK to develop nuclear weapons in the first place

Bush has been in charge for 6 years. Anything that was being "allowed" before his time, he could have addressed. He did nothing.

among the multiple other diplomatic failures of that administration with regard to NK made the situation enourmously more difficult for Bush

Oh, poor little Bushy. Big bad Clinton made things sooooo difficult for him. What is he to do? After all, he's only the president, and in charge of everything. Because of Clinton, it was sooo much harder for Bush when he tried to... umm... well, he didn't actually try to do anything. Oh hey, he did have one idea! Clinton's diplomacy failed... so Bush eliminated diplomacy!

I believe Bush has failed because [you'll have to supply this part as I have no clue what I'd say here].

LOL! Calling the left hypocrites for not acknowledging Clinton's failures, then claiming "no clue" when it comes to assigning a sliver of responsibility to the guy who has been in charge for 6 years!

But as expected. I didn't really expect to be happily impressed by your honesty. Thank you for not disappointing me.

Oh, I get it Brian, because Bush stopped the failed policies of the Clinton adminstration and is currently working to implement better policies that will mostly likely actually work, you see that as doing nothing and failing.

I suppose that would make sense to a lefty who thinks socialism/communism is a good thing.

Well, the obvious answer is "anything successful". But we'd have settled for "anything, period".

Oh, I get it Brian, because Bush stopped the failed policies of the Clinton adminstration and is currently working to implement better policies that will mostly likely actually work, you see that as doing nothing and failing.

LOL! Conveniently omitting the six year gap between stopping the policies and "currently". Gee, where did that time go? I guess Bush must have secretly been working out his elaborate plan for dealing with NoKo.

If you sit idly by and watch a time bomb tick down from 60 minutes, and don't take steps to stop it until it gets down to 10 seconds, then a) you did nothing for almost an hour, and b) you don't get credit for suddenly realizing that an urgent situation exists.

Exactly right nehemia, when we use a preemtive attack its the wrong thing to do. When we use diplomacy it's the wrong thing to do. No matter what Bush does to a secular socialist its the wrong thing to do.

So, is the left now complaining that we are not adopting a doctrine of pre-emptive attack?

Who said anything about attack? Is that all your brain can come up with? Doing nothing or attacking? But now that you mention it, I suppose it is possible that Bush allowed the situation to get out of hand so he'd now have an excuse for attacking. Good thinking, nehemiah!

Even though you'll probably never be intellectually honest enough to admit that Bush did not do "nothing" and there was no "six year gap", deep down I think you know the truth.

Umm, Clinton left office in 2000. NoKo tested the bomb in 2006. 2006-2000=6. What, now you're going to deny math?

Please tell us "the truth".

How come diplomacy is unacceptable to you?

It's entirely acceptable to me. When does it start? It's not to Bush. Too bad we haven't been using it for the past 6 years.

Or do you expect instaneous results?

Not at all. Which is why Bush should have started a long time ago. I don't understand why you act like it's fine that Bush has been putting off NoKo for years, and first started paying attention to them 60 seconds after the bomb test.

when we use a preemtive attack its the wrong thing to do. When we use diplomacy it's the wrong thing to do.

Ha! First of all, when did Bush use diplomacy? He's been purposely ignoring NoKo for years. Plus, here we have a whole thread lambasting Clinton for using diplomacy, and you go suggesting that Dems fault Bush for trying it. Very amusing.

No matter what Bush does to a secular socialist its the wrong thing to do.

Well, yes, no matter what he does, if the end result is a nuclear NoKo, then by definition it was the wrong thing to do.

Boy, you like that phrase "secular socialist", do ya? Learned ya some big words, eh?

The day the nation demands impeachment is almost upon us. Today (Oct 12), sacks and sacks of mail will be sent to congress demanding impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635).

There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.

That's where we come in. In addition to the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org, part of the movement to impeach the president, has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

STOP WAITING FOR YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO ACT FOR YOU.

You can initiate the impeachment process yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. Be a part of history.

Math? Did NoKo come into existence in 2000? Why does it only go to 2000?
...
Clinton for 14 years? We can evaluate moral actions in an instant

Hey, I was just responding to others, who said there was no 6-year gap between when Bush took office and now, and who said we have to wait 20 years to evaluate a presidency. If you have objections to those premises, take it up with them.

I was the one who wrote about the 20 years. I guess I have to explain.

20 years means the time it generally takes to evaluate as a whole where it stands in history. For example, Reagan's approval was very low in 1984 (22 years ago), but now he is exceptionally regarded by conservatives (even conservatives did not regard him so in 1984).

However, certain actions of course we do not have to wait to see if it was correct and good. For example, if you ask Monica how BC liked his BJ, she would be able to give you a pretty clear answer right now. Entiende?

Now, as your premise for no action on NoKo. The U.S. has been asking for six party talks for years (i.e. "diplomacy"). Just because NoKo has been adamantly saying no and wanting two party talks (just with the U.S.) does not mean "Bush did nothing". There are very good reasons why NoKo wants TWO vs SIX party talks -- and very good reasons why the U.S. pushes for SIX vs. TWO party talks. Entiende, tonto?